Unpopular Opinions Thread

[kieyra]

Just briefly, I agree that they screwed up with William, mostly in service of "OMG" moments that they probably hadn't even decided on when they filmed his initial scenes. And I suspect we'll get even more stuff that will amount to "don't you feel bad for all those assumptions you made back when you first met this character!?". 

(Don't have a problem with challenging assumptions--just don't like it when it smells slightly of Shondaland sensationalism. In other words, when it's set up as a "gotcha!") 

And yeah, the naming of generations is now new.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Generation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory

Edited January 19, 2017 by kieyra

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, DayGlorious said:

they are so sanitized, so perfect, and so utterly phoned-in that they feel like little more than diversity props.

I don't know if this is at all related to your point but I know I notice a phenomenon in tv where the black cast members are more likely to be more successful than the other cast.   In a way, I love it, but in a way it feels a bit like the casting people are overcompensating for having token blacks by making them more successful.   Like it'll be a show about a NYC police precinct but the only POC will be a black female chief of police.  I swear, so many police shows had black female police chiefs for a while there, maybe still, I thought there must be a shortage of 40-something black female actresses due to them all being cast as police chiefs already.  Which, great!  But why not just make the force 40% black or whatever the actual ratio is, instead of giving us one powerful token?  

I can only think of three current TV characters who drive 6-figure cars and they're all black, for example.  

[DayGlorious]

On 1/19/2017 at 5:47 PM, kieyra said:

Just briefly, I agree that they screwed up with William, mostly in service of "OMG" moments that they probably hadn't even decided on when they filmed his initial scenes. And I suspect we'll get even more stuff that will amount to "don't you feel bad for all those assumptions you made back when you first met this character!?". 

(Don't have a problem with challenging assumptions--just don't like it when it smells slightly of Shondaland sensationalism. In other words, when it's set up as a "gotcha!") 

Yes. This. The constant "gotchas" are a bit like hearing take after take of that riddle about the surgeon's son. After a while, instead of serving their presumably intended purpose, they do exactly the opposite. 

On 1/19/2017 at 6:11 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I don't know if this is at all related to your point but I know I notice a phenomenon in tv where the black cast members are more likely to be more successful than the other cast.   In a way, I love it, but in a way it feels a bit like the casting people are overcompensating for having token blacks by making them more successful.   Like it'll be a show about a NYC police precinct but the only POC will be a black female chief of police.  I swear, so many police shows had black female police chiefs for a while there, maybe still, I thought there must be a shortage of 40-something black female actresses due to them all being cast as police chiefs already.  Which, great!  But why not just make the force 40% black or whatever the actual ratio is, instead of giving us one powerful token?  

I can only think of three current TV characters who drive 6-figure cars and they're all black, for example.  

It definitely feels like overcompensation when we are repeatedly beaten over the head with how successful and wealthy Randall is, while his $3M/year sitcom-actor brother is defined by pretty much everything EXCEPT his money. 

[kieyra]

I think there are some very good points here. I just don't know what showrunners and other creatives can DO about it. Now more than ever, they are damned if they do/damned if they don't. (This isn't me railing against "PC" culture. I'm not even sure what that is any more.)

I'm a female IT worker (systems admin, to be exact). I love the show Silicon Valley, but they got a lot of criticism for lack of female representation on the show. The showrunners countered that Silicon Valley's tech industry is overwhelmingly male (or at least still was when the show debuted). I have no idea what side of that argument to come down on. I'd love to see just an everyday female IT worker like myself on the show, but while I know they exist I don't actually know any other women who do my job. So which is right? Balanced representation, or real-world accuracy? I'm sure people much smarter than me have debated this over far weightier shows than SV :)

Edited January 20, 2017 by kieyra

[ShadowFacts]

40 minutes ago, DayGlorious said:

I suspect you're reading a subtext that just isn't there. 

My beef with the way Randall and Beth are scripted and cast is not that they are attractive and successful. This is mainstream-as-it-gets, junk-food prime-time TV; I wouldn't expect them to be played by character actors. It's that in a show full of flawed people whose complexities and human failings we are clobbered with in ham-fisted fashion week in and week out, they are so sanitized, so perfect, and so utterly phoned-in that they feel like little more than diversity props. This show could and should do better than that, and I hope it does in the future.

As for William, I don't think I would care nearly as much about his appearance or his financial situation if he were given any purpose or depth outside of his relationship with Randall. The lack thereof makes him feel like less of a character and more of a plot device. Don't you think it's just a little weird that at this point in the show, someone with as much charisma and as much to offer the world as William has such a small, sad life? I mean, he has no known family besides Randall and a partner who wasn't worth an explanation of his whereabouts, no friends outside his NA homegroup, and really no one else except his cat. That just doesn't add up without some huge revelation that we haven't yet seen and probably won't. Not with the way everyone on the show keeps treating him as if he's been clean for 3 months instead of 3 decades, anyway. (Well, minus the medicinal brownie date with Beth, obviously.) And there's a lot we don't know about anyone on the show, but they have much more time for a character arc to develop, even if only in flashbacks. When William's dead, he's dead.  

How does the show do that?  Make them more than diversity props, or less phoned-in, I mean.  I actually don't see them as diversity props;  yes, they are black, but they aren't props.  Randall's fitting in a white family in a white community has been touched on, for sure.  It's pretty much the beginning point of the show.  Randall's family is living in a white enclave, yes, and he spoke to William about being careful with his every move.  But they weren't just planted there, we have some background about Randall's career, not so much yet about Beth's.  And perfect or sanitized, I don't see it.  Randall has some anxiety problems and family problems like anyone else.  He's been shown to feel he has to be a high achiever and perfectionist because of his origin. 

William having a small, sad life -- charisma or no, artistic talent or no, black men have some real challenges in life, whether they have been clean of drugs for 3 or 30 years.  He has said he lived alone for most of his life, and is relishing living his final days with Randall and his family.  There are many, many people who live alone, and it doesn't surprise me at all that someone like him who suffered a huge double loss like he did, and felt responsible for it, didn't manage to have a big, happy life.  I believe a lot of people have astounding musical and writing talents that never see the light of day.  He experienced a tragedy, did the best he could after it, kept his promise not to interfere, kept his sobriety, and now gets to enjoy the last chapter of his life.  A bit magical, sure.  Overdone, oh yeah, like much on the show.  But not weird to me, and I think he is a fully fleshed out character, as much as we can have in a few months of network tv. 

[DayGlorious]

1 minute ago, ShadowFacts said:

How does the show do that?  Make them more than diversity props, or less phoned-in, I mean. 

If I knew the answer to that question, I would be a screenwriter myself instead of (mostly) lurking on this forum. I do feel like Beth and especially Randall are conspicuous in their perfection, and a lot of that stems from an overcompensation that may have had some justification 20-30 years ago, but really isn't necessary or called-for today.

[kieyra]

Overly perfect or not, I will say that I love the actors' chemistry together, and they write good dialogue for the two of them. Nice rhythm, occasionally Gilmore Girls-ish. That may be one thing that's actually kept me watching when I wouldn't normally be answering the door for this much schmaltz.

Edited January 20, 2017 by kieyra

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

don't know if this is at all related to your point but I know I notice a phenomenon in tv where the black cast members are more likely to be more successful than the other cast.   In a way, I love it, but in a way it feels a bit like the casting people are overcompensating for having token blacks by making them more successful.   Like it'll be a show about a NYC police precinct but the only POC will be a black female chief of police.  I swear, so many police shows had black female police chiefs for a while there, maybe still, I thought there must be a shortage of 40-something black female actresses due to them all being cast as police chiefs already.  Which, great!  But why not just make the force 40% black or whatever the actual ratio is, instead of giving us one powerful token?

I think you hit on it though.  It really is tokenism and not necessarily a signifier of success.  But how simple it is to dot that I and cross a T by casting  a black woman of a certain age in a role you don't really need to write or develop and you get to say "see we are a diverse show.".  But how many of those police chiefs actually were considered a lead, co-lead or even first tier cast member in their show?  Or had a long, sustaining storyline?  Or had an on show romance with a main character?   No instead it is simple to have her come out of the office, brusquely command her underlings to "make sure you get all the evidence" and disappear back into her office until the next time she has to come back out and brusquely make another command.

Re: Beth & Randall, I think they are unicorns.  Not because they are perfect or anything, because I don't think they are any more perfect than say Coach and Tami Taylor, but because they are rare in tv drama. A functional, loving black married couple who aren't written specifically for a black issue, aren't struggling to make ends meet,  and who aren't sidelined or trotted out as the occasional couple friend of a main cast white pair.

[breezy424]

Thinking about it, how many couples of any race are a functional loving couple in a TV drama?  Friday Night Lights was years ago.  Blackish is a comedy but they are a functional loving black couple.  Admittedly I don't watch many TV dramas but I can't think of any off the top of my head.  I'm sure someone will remind me.

That aside, I agree there is tokenism on many levels, not just blacks.  I also see it changing. 

I also think there is a whole bunch of cliches going on in this show.  Kate so far has been very stereotyped.  The 'fat' issue.  Rebecca's mother lighting up the cigarette in her scene with her.....

I hope they go deeper.

[DayGlorious]

2 hours ago, kieyra said:

Overly perfect or not, I will say that I love the actors' chemistry together, and they write good dialogue for the two of them. Nice rhythm, occasionally Gilmore Girls-ish. That may be one thing that's actually kept me watching when I wouldn't normally be answering the door for this much schmaltz.

It has moments of chemistry, but there are a few places where it's absent or one-sided. Not seeing much of a sibling bond between Randall and Kate, or a big reason for the lack thereof, like the rivalry between him and Kevin. Rebecca and Miguel...not feeling it. Theirs feels like a marriage of convenience, and maybe it actually was; there's certainly something haunting and sad about how "dead" she seems around him compared to Saint Jack. William and Jessie...not feeling it there either (although I like both characters and wish it weren't the case). Kevin and Sloane...she's gorgeous and funny and lovable, and I'm sure I'm far from alone in wanting her and Kevin to make impossibly cute babies together, rather than the horrible awful babies with impossibly pretentious accent-marked names that he will invariably make with Olivia. But the fireworks seem less a matter of actual connection and more about her being cast like an extra on "The Big Bang Theory," with pitiful self-esteem and the illusion that Kevin is out of her league. (I'm inclined to say that she and Olivia are symbolic of Good Rebecca and Bad Rebecca, but maybe I'm reliving my college psych classes a little too much.) And the unexplored relationships, the undeveloped history, and all the related gaps are the things that make me grudgingly come come back for more, not that inconsistent chemistry. I want to see them develop into whole people. I want to see what made them who they are. I want them to be more than more than tokens and typecasts, more than binary representations of good and bad. And I hope they get that chance. Even Rebecca. 

[kieyra]

@DayGlorious, my post was ambiguous. I specifically meant Randall and Beth. I just meant the two actors play off each other well, and that the writing for them in "couple" mode is pretty tight. 

(Honestly, I'm not especially invested in any of these folks, other than feeling badly for Sloane, as I would be the bright but nerdy girl with the glasses. I don't even really do family dramas unless you count Six Feet Under, and I come from a tiny and dysfunctional/estranged family so a great deal of the dynamics and attempts at emotional resonance here are lost on me. Needless to say we had no Thanksgiving traditions, heh. Did have a long-lost adoptee/reunion thing though. Did. Not. Go. Well.)

(It's late and maybe I'm cranky about what looms over us tomorrow--although I'll be marching on Saturday--but I have a vague memory of being chastised in the past for saying I can't engage with a lot of the show's themes due to my lack of actual family. If someone would like to chastise me again, I'll pre-emptively give the same response I did last time--I'm only speaking for myself. Other people in similar situations are welcome to engage to whatever extent they feel able.)

Edited January 20, 2017 by kieyra

[DayGlorious]

14 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

Kate so far has been very stereotyped.  The 'fat' issue.  Rebecca's mother lighting up the cigarette in her scene with her.....

I hope they go deeper.

I was just thinking about Kate and how much of her character is based on her weight (which in turn made me really mad at Rebecca for not going all "hell hath no fury" on the parents of those horrible little girls at the pool). But a few things me from raising as much of an eyebrow over her being typecast as I do over Randall. First off is the fact that she's actually, no joke, honest to deity-of-choice fat -- easily 150 pounds past the point of some size-14 BS that can be resolved with a few months on a treadmill (*coughcoughTOBY*) or simply accepted as a fact of life. Second is the fact that I have friends and acquaintances who are or once were in that position. Like the characters on "My 600 Lb. Life," most were abused as kids. Those who weren't got stuck with the double whammy of depression and lifelong, debilitating health conditions, and being able to get out of bed and function every day meant carrying 100 extra pounds thanks to medication side effects. And I see every last one of them in Kate. As much as I wish it weren't the case, size does play that crucial and obvious a part in their self-definition, and those who went the surgery route did (and still do) have a difficult time redefining themselves when the pounds fell away. And I like that Kate is up-front about her struggles and tries really hard to overcome them instead of taking Toby's half-fat-acceptance, half-giving-up approach, even if so far there isn't much more to her than that. 

7 minutes ago, kieyra said:

@DayGlorious, my post was ambiguous. I specifically meant Randall and Beth. I just meant the two actors play off each other well, and that the writing for them in "couple" mode is pretty tight. 

(Honestly, I'm not especially invested in any of these folks, other than feeling badly for Sloane, as I would be the bright but nerdy girl with the glasses. I don't even really do family dramas unless you count Six Feet Under, and I come from a tiny and dysfunctional/estranged family so a great deal of the dynamics and attempts at emotional resonance here are lost on me. Needless to say we had no Thanksgiving traditions, heh. Did have a long-lost adoptee/reunion thing though. Did. Not. Go. Well.)

(It's late and maybe I'm cranky about what looms over us tomorrow--although I'll be marching on Saturday--but I have a vague memory of being chastised in the past for saying I can't engage with a lot of the show's themes due to my lack of actual family. If someone would like to chastise me again, I'll pre-emptively give the same response I did last time--I'm only speaking for myself. Other people in similar situations are welcome to engage to whatever extent they feel able.)

No chastisement here, and we're on the same page about Beth and Randall's chemistry. I do really like them as a couple. I just wish they had more...facets. I'm kind of a sucker for facets. 

[walnutqueen]

7 hours ago, topanga said:

With all do respect, the older generation usually names the ones after it: Baby Boomers, Gen X, etc. 

And out of curiosity, why don't you like (or love) Beth and Randall? Maybe it's because I think the two actors are strong, and I like seeing the depiction of a loving black couple, but those two are my favorites on the show. 

With all DUE respect, "Get off my lawn!".   ;-)

Beth & Randall just don't pique my interest much; I don't find their story or the acting all that compelling.

[pennben]

18 minutes ago, walnutqueen said:

With all DUE respect, "Get off my lawn!".   ;-)

HA!!  That was spectacular!!  This is the "unpopular opinions" thread.  It feels like folks shouldn't have to justify what they are saying beyond that here.

[SlackerInc]

@DayGlorious, I don't agree with you on every single particular, but that OP was a glorious read.  I'm glad you are out of lurkdom!

13 hours ago, walnutqueen said:

I am not boarding the Beth/Randall love train.

And what IS it about these new generations that requires them to obsess about naming and defining their generations ad nauseum?

I'm not into Beth/Randall (specifically Beth) either.  But as others have pointed out, naming and defining generations has a long history.  So unless you're a centenarian (in which case: congrats!) it's not just "these new generations" doing it!

12 hours ago, topanga said:

With all do respect, the older generation usually names the ones after it: Baby Boomers, Gen X, etc. 

And out of curiosity, why don't you like (or love) Beth and Randall? Maybe it's because I think the two actors are strong, and I like seeing the depiction of a loving black couple, but those two are my favorites on the show. 

To me, Beth often doesn't read as "loving".  This may be a cultural divide (I'm a white dude who only briefly dated two black women), but to me she comes across as a royal bitch most of the time.  Not all the time--in her most recent appearance (before this flashback episode) she was sweet and loving to Randall in trying to get him in the bath with her--but otherwise, it strikes me like her standard affect could be described as side-eyeing him (and/or anyone else in range), like "Say what now?" and just throwing shade like Molotov cocktails.  Apparently many people think it's a great couple if the wife is constantly snide/sarcastic and knocking her husband down a peg or three, but I could never stay married to that (of course, it's vanishingly unlikely I'd get to the point of marrying someone who acted like that to me).

8 hours ago, kieyra said:

I think there are some very good points here. I just don't know what showrunners and other creatives can DO about it. Now more than ever, they are damned if they do/damned if they don't. (This isn't me railing against "PC" culture. I'm not even sure what that is any more.)

I'm a female IT worker (systems admin, to be exact). I love the show Silicon Valley, but they got a lot of criticism for lack of female representation on the show. The showrunners countered that Silicon Valley's tech industry is overwhelmingly male (or at least still was when the show debuted). I have no idea what side of that argument to come down on. I'd love to see just an everyday female IT worker like myself on the show, but while I know they exist I don't actually know any other women who do my job. So which is right? Balanced representation, or real-world accuracy? I'm sure people much smarter than me have debated this over far weightier shows than SV :)

Yeah, I agree that this is a problem.  Something similar came up in the episode right before this one; ironically, that was a rare (unique?) case of my defending Beth!  She referred to "sexual preference" instead of "sexual identity" (or is it "orientation"?  I can't keep track), and one poster really read the show's writers the riot act.  It proved, she said, that they didn't have gay writers on staff; and besides, they should have done Internet research to get the terminology right.  Never mind that Beth's not gay, and didn't have an opportunity while conversing with her husband in the bathroom to research her terminology!  LOL  But for some people, it's more important to present things in the PC* way than to present a realistic character who might not be up on all the latest terminology.

*I hate that complaining about "PC" might make me sound like the idiot about to be *gag* inaugurated in a few hours.  I'm not that kind of anti-PC ideologue, but rather one of the Jonathan Chait school.  He is a liberal who has written books lionizing President Obama as one of our greatest presidents, but is also on a mission against the rise in recent years of a new wave of political correctness.

[walnutqueen]

I am well aware of the long history of naming generations.  I was mostly reacting to the seemingly endless "Millennials vs GenX" chatter that was happening in the episode thread (and I see that even the Mod asked the discussion be moved to the Social Issues thread).

[Guest]

13 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I think you hit on it though.  It really is tokenism and not necessarily a signifier of success.  But how simple it is to dot that I and cross a T by casting  a black woman of a certain age in a role you don't really need to write or develop and you get to say "see we are a diverse show.".  But how many of those police chiefs actually were considered a lead, co-lead or even first tier cast member in their show?  Or had a long, sustaining storyline?  Or had an on show romance with a main character?   No instead it is simple to have her come out of the office, brusquely command her underlings to "make sure you get all the evidence" and disappear back into her office until the next time she has to come back out and brusquely make another command.

Exactly!  I remember reading that Taraji Henson even complained about an early Person of Interest TV Guide cover that didn't have her in it. http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/842303/taraji-p-henson-rips-tv-guide-over-cover

 I remember at the time thinking, "Oh please, I've seen the show and you're not part of a 3-person show, you're the token black female 40-something cop who gets a couple lines here and there."  Maybe they did eventually make her role more prominent, I don't know, I didn't get far into that show.   I'm guessing they told Henson she'd be more featured when she signed on.   I recall Castle and the Mentalist had roles like hers and there were others but I can't remember them now.  I kind of dropped cop shows when the formulaic nature got tiresome.

[PRgal]

5 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

@DayGlorious, I don't agree with you on every single particular, but that OP was a glorious read.  I'm glad you are out of lurkdom!

I'm not into Beth/Randall (specifically Beth) either.  But as others have pointed out, naming and defining generations has a long history.  So unless you're a centenarian (in which case: congrats!) it's not just "these new generations" doing it!

To me, Beth often doesn't read as "loving".  This may be a cultural divide (I'm a white dude who only briefly dated two black women), but to me she comes across as a royal bitch most of the time.  Not all the time--in her most recent appearance (before this flashback episode) she was sweet and loving to Randall in trying to get him in the bath with her--but otherwise, it strikes me like her standard affect could be described as side-eyeing him (and/or anyone else in range), like "Say what now?" and just throwing shade like Molotov cocktails.  Apparently many people think it's a great couple if the wife is constantly snide/sarcastic and knocking her husband down a peg or three, but I could never stay married to that (of course, it's vanishingly unlikely I'd get to the point of marrying someone who acted like that to me).

Yeah, I agree that this is a problem.  Something similar came up in the episode right before this one; ironically, that was a rare (unique?) case of my defending Beth!  She referred to "sexual preference" instead of "sexual identity" (or is it "orientation"?  I can't keep track), and one poster really read the show's writers the riot act.  It proved, she said, that they didn't have gay writers on staff; and besides, they should have done Internet research to get the terminology right.  Never mind that Beth's not gay, and didn't have an opportunity while conversing with her husband in the bathroom to research her terminology!  LOL  But for some people, it's more important to present things in the PC* way than to present a realistic character who might not be up on all the latest terminology.

*I hate that complaining about "PC" might make me sound like the idiot about to be *gag* inaugurated in a few hours.  I'm not that kind of anti-PC ideologue, but rather one of the Jonathan Chait school.  He is a liberal who has written books lionizing President Obama as one of our greatest presidents, but is also on a mission against the rise in recent years of a new wave of political correctness.

OMG, I TOTALLY agree with you regarding the "being PC" situation.  I DESPISE the terms "POC" and "WOC" (I'm of Chinese descent, by the way) because I feel it objectifies and unnecessarily make people into victims (and I don't even WANT to get into the whole area of appropriation.  I mean, am I supposed to celebrate St. Patrick's Day by going to a pub and getting drunk?  Because being drunk is an Irish stereotype.  What about Mardi Gras?  As a (lapsed) Catholic/(sorta) Anglican, should I be upset?  To me, Shrove/Fat Tuesday/Mardi Gras is about eating pancakes and then fasting the following day, not partying like it's 1999).  As for Beth not knowing/using the "proper" terminology, could it be writers being "realistic" because people can no longer "keep up" with the right words to use?  Just because Beth is still in her 30s doesn't mean that she's up-to-date.  Heck, I sure am not! 

[MaryPatShelby]

On 1/19/2017 at 2:32 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I don't love McRaney in this.  I just clicked through a bunch of his scenes looking for a particular reference and he's so monotone and a little robotic in all his deliveries.  "Jack.  Your wife is in distress."  

I hate McRaney - one of my least favorite actors of all time.  I could take him in the little bit doled out when the series premiered, the Christmas episode tried my patience somewhat, but this was just too, to much for me. I really hope checking in on his life isn't going to be a thing.

[Tiger]

On 1/20/2017 at 9:42 AM, Winston9-DT3 said:

Exactly!  I remember reading that Taraji Henson even complained about an early Person of Interest TV Guide cover that didn't have her in it. http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/842303/taraji-p-henson-rips-tv-guide-over-cover

 I remember at the time thinking, "Oh please, I've seen the show and you're not part of a 3-person show, you're the token black female 40-something cop who gets a couple lines here and there."  Maybe they did eventually make her role more prominent, I don't know, I didn't get far into that show.   I'm guessing they told Henson she'd be more featured when she signed on.   I recall Castle and the Mentalist had roles like hers and there were others but I can't remember them now.  I kind of dropped cop shows when the formulaic nature got tiresome.

This is getting very off-topic but it was CBS that made the call to not have Taraji on that cover and CBS which grossly underestimated how important Taraji and her character were to the shows' at-the-time success.  The show was never the same in the ratings after they killed Det. Carter.  

That said, I dont think her exclusion had anything to do with race or gender and everything to do with Les Mooves having his people that he thinks are stars and promoting those people.  

On 1/20/2017 at 9:59 AM, PRgal said:

OMG, I TOTALLY agree with you regarding the "being PC" situation.  I DESPISE the terms "POC" and "WOC" (I'm of Chinese descent, by the way) because I feel it objectifies and unnecessarily make people into victims (and I don't even WANT to get into the whole area of appropriation.  I mean, am I supposed to celebrate St. Patrick's Day by going to a pub and getting drunk?  Because being drunk is an Irish stereotype.  What about Mardi Gras?  As a (lapsed) Catholic/(sorta) Anglican, should I be upset?  To me, Shrove/Fat Tuesday/Mardi Gras is about eating pancakes and then fasting the following day, not partying like it's 1999).  As for Beth not knowing/using the "proper" terminology, could it be writers being "realistic" because people can no longer "keep up" with the right words to use?  Just because Beth is still in her 30s doesn't mean that she's up-to-date.  Heck, I sure am not! 

I despise PC, diversity, and this whole idea of people needing to see themselves on screen.  I look nothing like Beth yet I see myself in her.  This focus on melanin, gender, and orientation by social justice warriors is ruining society.  

Edited January 21, 2017 by Tiger

[HeySandyStrange]

Quote

I despise PC, diversity, and this whole idea of people needing to see themselves on screen.  I look nothing like Beth yet I see myself in her.  This focus on melanin, gender, and orientation by social justice warriors is ruining society.  

I'm not going to lie, pc culture can be overdone sometimes. But the point is, there is a pretty large majority of people who were and still are uncomfortable with people solely based on their skin color, sexuality, etc. and if it wasn't for people pushing for diversity, the majority would probably keep people like Randall, Beth, William, Jesse, and Miguel off our screens. 20 or 30 years ago minority characters on tv were more likely to be stereotypes rather then three dimensional characters that we all could see ourselves in. So I wouldn't say that the social justice warriors have been totally detrimental to society.

[SlackerInc]

I agree, @HeySandyStrange.  We need a happy medium.  Portray a diverse variety of realistic, non-stereotypical characters who are not straight white people, in proportion to their numbers in the U.S. population, but don't expect every character to speak with the PC precision of a Dartmouth gender studies major.

[CleoCaesar]

9 hours ago, Tiger said:

I despise PC, diversity, and this whole idea of people needing to see themselves on screen.  I look nothing like Beth yet I see myself in her.  This focus on melanin, gender, and orientation by social justice warriors is ruining society.  

 

Hear, hear. It's ridiculous and yes contributes to the political backlash which we saw culminate in early November last year.

[talktoomuch]

12 hours ago, Tiger said:

This is getting very off-topic but it was CBS that made the call to not have Taraji on that cover and CBS which grossly underestimated how important Taraji and her character were to the shows' at-the-time success.  The show was never the same in the ratings after they killed Det. Carter.  

That said, I dont think her exclusion had anything to do with race or gender and everything to do with Les Mooves having his people that he thinks are stars and promoting those people.

You make the case for racial/sexual preferences and then back away from it. CBS (Moonves) wrongly ignored the importance of a black female character, excluding and ultimately eliminating her in favor of two white male characters. They made the assumption that her character was nonessential. Why do you think they did that? How could it not be at least partially attributed to inherent or perceived biases?

[PRgal]

7 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I agree, @HeySandyStrange.  We need a happy medium.  Portray a diverse variety of realistic, non-stereotypical characters who are not straight white people, in proportion to their numbers in the U.S. population, but don't expect every character to speak with the PC precision of a Dartmouth gender studies major.

Actually, it should be in proportion to a show's setting.  In other words, if a show is about IT, it should have Asian characters - more than one.  Same for a, say, medical show taking place in the Northwest (yes, Grey's Anatomy, I'm LOOKING AT YOU!!!).   However, if it's about friends and their immediate acquaintances, it doesn't necessarily have to be AS DIVERSE.  Not everyone has multicultural friends.

Edited January 22, 2017 by PRgal

[Tiger]

4 hours ago, talktoomuch said:

You make the case for racial/sexual preferences and then back away from it. CBS (Moonves) wrongly ignored the importance of a black female character, excluding and ultimately eliminating her in favor of two white male characters. They made the assumption that her character was nonessential. Why do you think they did that? How could it not be at least partially attributed to inherent or perceived biases?

You mis-read my post.  Les Moonves has his people that he believes are stars, and that has nothing to do with race/gender/whatever.

For example, LL Cool J of NCIS LA, and Kristin Vangness (sp) of Criminal Minds are 'Moonves people' and are both afforded opportunities that their co-stars are not.  Additionally, while CBS hasn't done a thing to try and retain other Criminal Minds, for example, stars, if and/or when Vangness (sp) explored leaving you bet your ass CBS would move heaven and earth to get her to stay; same with LL Cool J re NCIS LA.

Speaking to Person of Interest, Sarah Shahi was a 'Moonves person' and as such was treated as an equal to Jim Cavaziel and Michael Emerson.  

Edited January 22, 2017 by Tiger

[OtterMommy]

3 hours ago, PRgal said:

Actually, it should be in proportion to a show's setting.  In other words, if a show is about IT, it should have Asian characters - more than one.  Same for a, say, medical show taking place in the Northwest (yes, Grey's Anatomy, I'm LOOKING AT YOU!!!).   However, if it's about friends and their immediate acquaintances, it doesn't necessarily have to be AS DIVERSE.  Not everyone has multicultural friends.

I agree with this, but it is one thing to have actors of different ethnic backgrounds.  I also want to see their culture portrayed.  On Grey's Anatomy, they did have (ahem) one Asian character for quite some time and I can count on one hand the number of times that played any role in her backstory or current experience (and..sticking with GA, where are all the doctors of middle eastern descent?)  Honestly, it seems only sit-coms do this, and in an exaggerated way.  I think this show approaches it as best it can--they can only do so much with Randall and the African-American experience when he was raised in a white family.  I suppose they could go further into Beth's backstory and how her experience matches or clashes with Randall.

[DearEvette]

Well smack my ass and call me  a Social Justice Warrior!  because I love diversity.  Love, love, love it.  And advocate it in tv and film every chance I get.  But then again, I understand that the term 'diversity' simply means a 'range of different things.'  Sameness in either race, age, gender, income range, location etc. becomes stagnant and is frankly unrealistic.  But there is a difference, imo, between wanting diversity and representation and holding some rigid standard of behavior & terminology that goes beyond just the civil and common sense to the needlessly nit-picky.  Also wanting diversity =/= down with whitey. 

But this has gone crazily off topic.  Back on topic.  I don't hate Miguel.  I was indifferent on Miguel.  The man really hasn't done anything at all to engender dislike .  And after the Christmas episode he seems just like a dorky grandpa, honestly.  He seems like he means well.  I am actually very curious about Miguel.  Also I don't find this show tear jerky at all.  It annoys me that the marketing for it boils down to 'grab your tissues.'  The characters aren't hateful far from it,  but it seems like the simple act of showing parents being loving to each other and their kids or strangers forming a connection through shared humanity is worthy of tears?

[OtterMommy]

13 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Well smack my ass and call me  a Social Justice Warrior!  because I love diversity.  Love, love, love it.  And advocate it in tv and film every chance I get.  But then again, I understand that the term 'diversity' simply means a 'range of different things.'  Sameness in either race, age, gender, income range, location etc. becomes stagnant and is frankly unrealistic.  But there is a difference, imo, between wanting diversity and representation and holding some rigid standard of behavior & terminology that goes beyond just the civil and common sense to the needlessly nit-picky.  Also wanting diversity =/= down with whitey. 

I'm with you....I love seeing accurate representations of society in film, tv, literature.  I will admit that I hate it when people slap "PC" onto it.  I do hate the term "politically correct," because it means different things to different people and, at this point, only seems to have a negative connotation.

Quote

But this has gone crazily off topic.  Back on topic.  I don't hate Miguel.  I was indifferent on Miguel.  The man really hasn't done anything at all to engender dislike .  And after the Christmas episode he seems just like a dorky grandpa, honestly.  He seems like he means well.  I am actually very curious about Miguel.  Also I don't find this show tear jerky at all.  It annoys me that the marketing for it boils down to 'grab your tissues.'  The characters aren't hateful far from it,  but it seems like the simple act of showing parents being loving to each other and their kids or strangers forming a connection through shared humanity is worthy of tears?

My take on Miguel, which is a repetition of things I've already said, is that I don't think the show wants us to like him.  It seems to me that, at nearly every opportunity (except fighting with the inflatable), they've painted him in a somewhat negative light.  I don't know, maybe it is just me.  But, at this point, I don't think my own feelings about him are even relevant (which are, by the way, not hate--mild dislike.  If I had my choice of being stuck next to either Miguel, Toby, or Olivia on a cross-country flight, you'd better believe I'd pick Miguel!)

[Guest]

15 hours ago, talktoomuch said:

CBS (Moonves) wrongly ignored the importance of a black female character, excluding and ultimately eliminating her in favor of two white male characters. They made the assumption that her character was nonessential.

I don't doubt that Henson was considered tertiary to Cavaziel and Emerson by top brass but the article I posted above has a direct quote from the TV Guide editor saying that cover was solely her decision.  So I'm uncomfortable painting Moonves as some racist based on that anecdote, though he may well be, based on other evidence, I don't know.  

But I also don't fault the TV Guide editor because the show (what little I watched) never did feature Henson, which in itself is indicative of a trend in cop shows.  I'm not sure I'd call it racism so much as tokenism, which to me are a bit different.   

[Neurochick]

On January 19, 2017 at 3:59 PM, DayGlorious said:

But couldn't the writers have done more than just load Dwayne Wayne and Denise Huxtable from "A Different World" into a time machine and re-script them as the couple they might have been if Lisa Bonet didn't get knocked up? With the standard disclaimer that as a white person, I may be swerving a little out of my lane here, something about both the casting and scripting here feels very tokenizing and clichéd.

Don't get this at all.  Maybe you are out of your lane?  I never can understand what "boring" in TV means.  I am just glad Beth and Randall aren't dysfunctional.  

[mojito]

Quote

He looks like a unclean, homeless derelict.  All the time. 

And people keep referring to him as Pornstache.  Hell, at least he looks neat.

Fifteen years from now, the inexplicably trendy scruff look will be described similarly. I can imagine people referring to the hairy-neck/throat, mountain man style as a derelict or pedophile look. 

[DearEvette]

54 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

But I also don't fault the TV Guide editor because the show (what little I watched) never did feature Henson, which in itself is indicative of a trend in cop shows.

Honestly, I think the character of Carter really was a buck in the token trend.  She started out as kind of John's nemesis and had an arc as one of the very few clean cops that he relied on during the whole dirty cops arc than ran through three seasons.  By the time the second half of S1 rolled around she really was third lead cast member.  She and John created a very strong personal bond that she helped him a lot with the 'numbers' even though she was largely in the dark about the machine but she'd invested a lot of trust in John and Finch and vice versa.  By the time the third season rolled around she her arc to take down the dirty cops for once and all was fantastic.  But it was the build up to the kill off.  Still it was such a fantastic arc.  Also it is strongly implied that John fell in strong like with her if not love before she was killed.  So she was an important cast member and not just the token black cop.  Which is why her death was felt to the extent that everybody and their mother had to do the media tap dance about explaining her being killed off.

[methodwriter85]

On 1/18/2017 at 11:25 PM, kieyra said:

 Not only all this ^^ (and someone in the current ep thread said his hair looks like it's been marinated in olive oil)--but I also just completed the run of Gilmore Girls where MV's Jess is a non-stop bratty asshat for three seasons. Ugh. All I'm really getting from Jack is that he has brainwashed himself into this dream of a perfect family.

I think that's pretty understandable though. Jack grew up in an abusive family situation, so he's idealized the perfect family/home and he's determined to make it a reality.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Honestly, I think the character of Carter really was a buck in the token trend.  She started out as kind of John's nemesis and had an arc as one of the very few clean cops that he relied on during the whole dirty cops arc than ran through three seasons.  By the time the second half of S1 rolled around she really was third lead cast member.  She and John created a very strong personal bond that she helped him a lot with the 'numbers' even though she was largely in the dark about the machine but she'd invested a lot of trust in John and Finch and vice versa.  By the time the third season rolled around she her arc to take down the dirty cops for once and all was fantastic.  But it was the build up to the kill off.  Still it was such a fantastic arc.  Also it is strongly implied that John fell in strong like with her if not love before she was killed.  So she was an important cast member and not just the token black cop.  Which is why her death was felt to the extent that everybody and their mother had to do the media tap dance about explaining her being killed off.

Good to know.  I watched maybe 6 episodes and she wasn't given much in those, if I recall right.  

[talktoomuch]

1 hour ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

 I'm not sure I'd call it racism so much as tokenism, which to me are a bit different.  

@Winston9-DT3 I never called it racism. I said it was inherent or perceived bias. The two are not the same to me. It's when network execs and show runners make decisions about casting and storylines claiming to know what people want to see, but it's moreso based on their own ideas about what people want to see.

[Guest]

Sorry, I'm confusing two big orange T posters, and the other one didn't actually call Moonves a racist, either, I see now.  

[talktoomuch]

All good @Winston9-DT3. I need a pic in my profile.

[Enigma X]

My UO is that I do not find Jack and Randall perfect.

[SlackerInc]

On 1/22/2017 at 6:23 AM, PRgal said:

Actually, it should be in proportion to a show's setting.  In other words, if a show is about IT, it should have Asian characters - more than one.  Same for a, say, medical show taking place in the Northwest (yes, Grey's Anatomy, I'm LOOKING AT YOU!!!).   However, if it's about friends and their immediate acquaintances, it doesn't necessarily have to be AS DIVERSE.  Not everyone has multicultural friends.

All true.  But what I really meant is that across the TV landscape (or maybe within an individual network, where it is actually under one administration's control), the leading characters (not just token background characters) should represent roughly their percentage in the population.  So six or seven shows about all-white groups of friends is okay, if one group is gay and you also have a show about black friends and a couple about Latino friends.

[DayGlorious]

On 1/22/2017 at 7:09 PM, Neurochick said:

Don't get this at all.  Maybe you are out of your lane?  I never can understand what "boring" in TV means.  I am just glad Beth and Randall aren't dysfunctional.  

Really? And why are you glad for that? Why are you glad that every other character gets their issues laid bare for the audience to see in the interest of making them "multifaceted," while Randall's character never goes deeper than his backstory and trite Steve Urkel trope, and Beth barely has a personality at all? 

[Neurochick]

36 minutes ago, DayGlorious said:

Really? And why are you glad for that? Why are you glad that every other character gets their issues laid bare for the audience to see in the interest of making them "multifaceted," while Randall's character never goes deeper than his backstory and trite Steve Urkel trope, and Beth barely has a personality at all? 

Because too often on TV, (especially reality TV, and the news) black people are portrayed as dysfunctional; and I'd rather not see black people portrayed as dysfunctional; I'm not into "struggle porn."

Edited January 24, 2017 by Neurochick

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, Neurochick said:

Because too often on TV, (especially reality TV, and the news) black people are portrayed as dysfunctional; and I'd rather not see black people portrayed as dysfunctional; I'm not into "struggle porn."

Jumping in here...I also, generally speaking, am not a fan of dysfunctional.  First of all, what does that even mean?  Yes, there are characters who have some serious issues.  Sometimes, their character is built around that issue and sometimes it is sort of just brushed off (fan of the former, annoyed by the latter).  Secondly, I really, really, really, really do not believe that for a TV married couple to be "interesting" they have to have a "dysfunctional" relationship.  There is not a happy, functional relationship out there that doesn't have its problems.  I would much rather see a happy couple work through issues together than yet another unhappy/flawed couple fight with each other.

All that being said, I would like a bit more from Beth.  I don't think she's a flat character--I just don't think they've gone very deep with her (yet).  I think the more we get to know Beth, the more we'll be able to understand Randall.  I'm not faulting the show for this (yet)...we're only half a season into what will be at least a 3 season show.  But I do hope we see it soon.

[DearEvette]

2 hours ago, DayGlorious said:

Really? And why are you glad for that? Why are you glad that every other character gets their issues laid bare for the audience to see in the interest of making them "multifaceted," while Randall's character never goes deeper than his backstory and trite Steve Urkel trope, and Beth barely has a personality at all? 

ooh,  I don't think they've made Kate multifaceted at all.  IMO, she is the one character I think who has suffered the most when it really comes to character development.  She is all about her weight.  That is the defining characteristic about her.  I know I am one of the people who wanted her weight to just be a sympton of bigger issues.  But so far we haven't seen it.

I would put Kevin and Randal kinda equal in that what we know of them is both rooted in their pasts.  My degree in Armchair Psychology tells me that Kevin went into acting because he felt invisible and overlooked by his family and craved the attention and love that he felt he wasn't getting.  And who gets better attention and adulation that a star?  Randall's need to be perfect is probably because he knows he didn't fit in so he compensated.

I do think the writing is richer for Jack and Rebecca but it feels like they collectively get more time for us to spend with them.  The other three --  their time feels like it gets fractured and it is also intimately shared with Jack and Rebecca's stories.

I do agree that Beth needs more develoment as well.  But it is an ambitious show with a lot of stuff it is trying to explore and has had very little time to do it in so far.  And to be fair Beth is primarily a supporting character.  I think the actress does that thing where she is given little nuggets and because she is charismatic she makes them gold.  I get impatient because I want to know all the things right now too.  But I have to trust that they can breathe a little with two assured seasons and use that time to flesh out the characters a but more.

[Aloeonatable]

Quote

I know I am one of the people who wanted her weight to just be a sympton of bigger issues.  But so far we haven't seen it.

I think she has a mother issue. She has compared herself to her mother. Rebecca isn't as obvious in her criticisms of Kate as say her mother was to her, but we've seen how Rebecca monitors Kate's weight. I think if we think about it we can find other incidents where Rebecca has shown disapproval of Kate and I don't think it is limited to just her appearance. I also think that we'll see more in later episodes.

[OtterMommy]

31 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I do agree that Beth needs more develoment as well.  But it is an ambitious show with a lot of stuff it is trying to explore and has had very little time to do it in so far.  And to be fair Beth is primarily a supporting character.  I think the actress does that thing where she is given little nuggets and because she is charismatic she makes them gold.  I get impatient because I want to know all the things right now too.  But I have to trust that they can breathe a little with two assured seasons and use that time to flesh out the characters a but more.

I agree, both about Beth (as I said above) and generally.  We know that we're getting 2.5 more seasons, at least, of this show which means that the writers have the time to really flesh things out.  I also find myself getting impatient with it all, but I also don't feel like the writers are sort floundering and trying to figure out what to do.  Watching the show, it *feels* like there is a plan and, if we don't know something yet, it seems like that information just has not yet been revealed--not that TPTB behind the scenes haven't figured it out yet.  Trust me, there are plenty of shows out there where viewers can easily tell that the writers and showrunners are trying to figure things out as they go--This Is Us is, thankfully, not among them.

[chocolatine]

10 hours ago, DayGlorious said:

Really? And why are you glad for that? Why are you glad that every other character gets their issues laid bare for the audience to see in the interest of making them "multifaceted," while Randall's character never goes deeper than his backstory and trite Steve Urkel trope, and Beth barely has a personality at all? 

I think it's obvious that Randall has plenty of issues he's struggling to process, he's just the kind of person who manages to mostly stay functional despite everything. He's a husband, a father, and a provider; he's keeping it together for his family's sake.

Edited January 25, 2017 by chocolatine
grammar

[mansonlamps]

What is "struggle porn?"

[CleoCaesar]

On 1/22/2017 at 7:23 AM, PRgal said:

Actually, it should be in proportion to a show's setting.  In other words, if a show is about IT, it should have Asian characters - more than one.  Same for a, say, medical show taking place in the Northwest (yes, Grey's Anatomy, I'm LOOKING AT YOU!!!).   However, if it's about friends and their immediate acquaintances, it doesn't necessarily have to be AS DIVERSE.  Not everyone has multicultural friends.

Haha Grey's Anatomy has only one kind of racial diversity, and always has. Not a single Indian-American doctor in allegedly one of the best hospitals in the country. (Wait I'm wrong. There was an Indian-American nurse a few seasons ago.)

I've seen criticisms along the lines of "This family is too white". Wtf. How many members of a different race do MOST families have?

[ShadowFacts]

7 hours ago, DayGlorious said:

Really? And why are you glad for that? Why are you glad that every other character gets their issues laid bare for the audience to see in the interest of making them "multifaceted," while Randall's character never goes deeper than his backstory and trite Steve Urkel trope, and Beth barely has a personality at all? 

It's so interesting that we all have our own lenses through which we view this.  I don't see Randall as Steve Urkel tropey at all, and I think Beth has a strong personality.  Randall is not dorky, dressed in ill-fitting clothes, clumsy or annoying.  He's capable, pretty hot, successful and compassionate, but he does have his problems with intensity, which is both evident and has been alluded to (temporary blindness).  Beth is no wallflower, neither domineering nor subservient, has been take-charge and direct with William and Kevin, is witty and also compassionate.  That to me is the opposite of no personality at all. 

40 minutes ago, CleoCaesar said:

I've seen criticisms along the lines of "This family is too white". Wtf. How many members of a different race do MOST families have?

Well, of course, the Piersons are multiracial, and my own family is, and more and more families all the time are.